pretty striking. there have been changes in the economy. in afghanistan. we drove across kabul to the university in afghanistan. i wish every american could go american university in afghanistan. there, if every american could go there, or if american could see what is happening just in that one across kabul to it, i believe it would change most americans about what we have accomplished theh our allies and with afghan security forces in afghanistan. the city now is full of cars, isere is traffic jams, there shops opening all over the place. people are in markets. drive -- we couldn't across kabul, they wouldn't let

across kabul years before. it just simply was too dangerous. it is still a dangerous place, by the way. i don't want to sound pollyannish here. things havent is changed for the better in afghanistan and the american people, sadly, don't know it. relative to the american by way ofy itself part of the story, of course, is the growth in the number of students. when it opened i think it with 53 students. there is now 1,000 students there. 300 of them are women. and they have a broad number of courses. i won't go into all those. on ann a a newd campus an international campus

women's economic . defense dollars to open up a women's economic development school, a.i.d.?'t that why is it d.o.d.? significantly to the security of the country, but i think basically the answer is because the d.o.d. did a number of things including some of the commanders' expenditures which helped the development of that is so essential to its security and this is part of it. at thee story we got american university at a town meeting we had there is one hisdent we talked about life experience. when the taliban was there, he took refuge with his family. a younger boy at that time. for safety.o iran

taliban wereheas th driven out, he came back and was accepted at the american university. taught himself as a matter of fact, how to read and how to right. he is now interviewing for a job as a sales manager at seimens and applying for a scholarship. there are four fullbright scholars at the american university in kabul. wanted me to say thanks to the american people. so this is as close as i will be able to come. ine education system afghanistan, not just higher education. universities, the number that was given to me is so i don'ttuitive use it. in terms of the lower grades

before you get to colleges and universities, before the taliban was driven out to the been, 900,000ave boys in afghan schools ten or so.ago now 8 million students in schools. about 3 million of those are girls. none of whom could have been educated before we got there allies.r in 2001, under the taliban were 20,000 teachers, all male. now 200,000 teachers. 60,000 of whom are women. healthcare many improved. significantlyty down. refugeeslion afghan who fled to pakistan have returned home. that 67% of the

a mostan people in recent survey think that the afghan war was not worth fighting? how did that happen? the picture is much, number.tter than that i just don't believe that the american people have had a fair or fuller picture of the events in afghanistan. that the press has story. a good it hasn't missed the problems. it has missed the progress. our peoplesion that either.sn't come from it comes from what they read or hear or see and what they have sort of a steady diet of all of the problems,

which is fair game. and they should be brought into the light and disclosed and written about and talked about. but what has been missing, i believe, is the part of the afghan story which represents real progress so that the american people have been the sense ofnied partial or at least success which i believe they the entitled to because of loss of blood and treasure by our people. i think it is a sad -- it is that our people don't have that sense that hey, we have progress in afghanistan. the picture basically has just one-sided focused just too much on failure and on

discord. now have to decide what we are going to do, what the next steps in afghanistan? we need a security agreement a so-called bilateral security agreement for our troops to be able to stay. reached and will be reached soon because i think we relationshipnuing to doafghanistan to try everything that we can within reason to keep the progress moving in the right direction not to see a fallback to taliban control or taliban rule. in terms of the security on the the taliban has not accomplished their strategic goals. they have not been able to hold any additional territory. were 4,000there overs that had been turned

to the control of the afghan forces and there were thoseks against 3,000 of sites. in 100 cases of the 4,000, there was temporary success by taliban attackers. temporary. them was it any kind of permanent success. temporary and then turned back. so that the security situation military perspective has significantly improved. this isough and critical and i will stop here, we turned over the entire basically to the afghans. been a huges success story. we -- our commanders have been

surprised by how well the afghan security forces have done. now this is not perfect. there are places where the security is not quite as good with the afghan forces there on their own. are now basically on their own. quick. it doesn't seem quick. a ten year war seems like forever but in terms of the transfer of responsibility to the afghan forces this has been couple of years essentially. i remember now much time and and effort we spent just a few years ago trying to get data on how many of the afghan forces were being partnered with us. were being led by us. how many were on their own. basically they are on their own. supportingwe have troops still there. on their way out. endy will all be out by the of next year except for perhaps a force that will remain. we don't know the number but

a total coalition force of 10,000 who will remain logistics onlp on perhaps on intelligence and training,dditional perhaps on the helicopters and air force. some special activities which will be theaged in by whatever residual force is, and ha that decided yet. nonetheless, they are basically country onng this their own. they have done a better job than i think most of our expected.s have we need to be continually engaged in afghanistan. we need for that to happen. to have a bilateral agreement. president karzai is always a challenge. diplomatic when i say that. this is a place of diplomacy. want to be diplomatic.

rhetoric has been timesingly bad at inaccurate at times. said things that i can't figure out why he is saying them, what the motive is. like one of the things that he says is that nato has not successd any security in afghanistan or he will say that we have at time be in lee with the taliban. and i asked him directly. i said what possible motive have to be in league minutehe taliban for one when they are killing our men and women and your men and women? what could possibly be our motive? he has been well, trying to figure that out himself. [ laughter ] >> and then he -- i said well,

hurts, it hurts. the american people hear you is almoste way, he alone in terms of the leadership of that country that doesn't makegh it much difference whether we come or stay. he is almost alone. you talk to the ministers you talk to the educators there, they want us to stay. we can't stay. can have a residual force but we can't stay. and so finally he says well, he said there has been a western of divided rule. and conquer here in afghanistan. that is the best he could do. or 100e what happened 50 years ago. or when the brits or russians or whoever. >> alex and. alexander. than i do.k further anyway, that is it. and i just told him, i said you it just is -- you are undermining a goal which you

obviously want, which is for there to be com some kind of a residual presence and your people clearly want by any any conversation. good healthyd a withersation, not my first karzai but perhaps my last, i don't know. anyway, thanks for the invitation and we would be happy to engage in conversation. you.k [ applause ] >> so i want to ask you there a lot i want to ask you about afghanistan. but i want to start with the dustup over the n.s.a. allegedr our, you know, espionage of friends and allies around the world. >> still alleged? pretty muchit is acknowledged. i tried to get an explicit

acknowledgement out of the and they haven't gone that far. >> what was the apology for if haven't acknowledged it? anyway. about angelament merkel is that the united states is not and will not be in on her phone conversations. there was never any statement about the past tense. was always current, future. did you know this was going on? you got all of the security -- specifically. i think the most that i would have known would have been the would have been the intelligence assessments. saying specifically where they came from. in other words, it could be say, well, that the source of assessment would be high level officials, for instance, in a country. but you don't know that was one on one or transferred anonymously in conversation. whether it was overheard. the source is -- they don't describe in the reports that we

get that so and so's phone was -- conversation was tapped. that is not the way the reports. assumed say that people that there were conversations were overheard but i don't -- it wasn't as though a reporte to us with saying we want you all to know earliesenning in on -- are listening in to conversations of leaders. >> not going to believe with merkel just said. >> yes. >> it didn't shock you when you report?e >> it didn't shock me. startles us when we look at or we hear of something wrong.ounds to me so i don't think we ought to be tapping the phone conversations the phoneing in on conversations of our allies'

leaders. >> period? >> period. question is who are our allies. if there is a list. >> there is a list. major nonnato allys. >> i can't confirm that here. but allegedly now nine leaders according to some of the reports. i don't believe all of the i hear or read. even from you. present company excepted. depends on your source. >> right. >> and sometimes you guys say anonymous. >> right. >> just maybe no more than once a day. frequently in the media an anonymous white house source. we don't know who the heck that source is. and there is times with some investigative reporters, you, who will try to get information from us. it happens all the time on the hill. up and say will come planning aat you are trip to the moon. or i better make it more

logical. planning a trip to north korea. >> okay. >> kind of like the moon. >> and that reporter never heard that. hopingsaying i heard, because i did go to north korea ten years ago that maybe i got plans now. and what -- or there is a rumor that he heard. so, you know, some very aggressive investigative are able to get anonymous statements and use get confirmations. i mean it is a well-known thing. >> but back to i mean the here though is we have our nato allies, we have the allies.on-nato that list includes afghanistan. includes pakistan. it be smart for the states to foreswear any listening in on the leaders of those two countries? >> the test for me is whether

leaders have a reasonable expectation that we are not going to try to listen expectations. that to me would be a test. and if there is a reasonable we would notthat be trying to listen to their conversations then i think we some kind of an understanding with other countries about protecting our listening in -- from being listened in to. kind of a -- using it as kind of a privacy test, what do what is their reasonable expectation as to whether or not their business records are going to be opened to more than the telephone companies,. >> right. >> kind of that issue. what is the reasonable expectation about privacy? think that our friends and leaders ought to have -- do have or should have, even if they don't and they are so cynical now up believing that they

won't be tapped by their best friends, i think we are better of trust because we need the trust of our allies' leaders. we need that trust and i think is better that there be a reasonable expectation if there theeady isn't one that conversations that are intended friends p.ate of our leaders are not going to be intervened by us. is my test. >> are you concerned that we the pendulum swing back. talked to officials that are concerned that we are going to overcorrect this. even if it went a little bit far. why are we listening to chancellor merkel, that there a move to really constrain what the n.s.a. and agencies intelligence do and we could have something like, you know, i mean much of talks about how we went too far after the

and all ofmission that. >> i haven't seen evidence of yet. sure, it can go too far. wet from what i have seen, are not anywhere near going too too even though we could go far. the pendulum could go too far n.s.a. metadata issue. a fascinating issue. the question so i won't take the time to give my views on it. i haven't seen the pendulum swing too far yet. back to afghanistan. the meeting with karzai. he said all of the things you said, talked to some u.s. officials, some off-the-record. we will talk about him as if he a little bit unstable. >> i don't think he is unstable. be in thes it like to room with him? >> he is a -- a very friendly bynversation, first of all, the way. he was very direct. i talked to him about the things that he says and the

impact that that has on us and that i don'te and understand his politics, by the way. presenceeople want a an ongoing presence why is he make itthings that either unlikely, less likely, or that he doesn't care that much? what is the politics? i don't get it. i'm a politician. while you willt see politicians say things for public consumption. i know it is rare. whilence in a great politicians will say something for their publics that they don't exactly believe themselves or they would stay differently. why is he saying these things? totallyit is inconsistent with where his public is. that.'t get the conversation i want to emphasize are very friendly, very direct. question was about n.s.a. onu know, trying to put me

the -- trying to put me on the defensive. said why are -- he says i presume you are tapping and i go why are you doing that to me? i said we are -- we tap everybody. discriminate. [ laughter ] >> not quite true, but -- it but i decided let's go on to afghanistan rather than -- >> right, right, right. >> now, he -- obviously you have a presidential election going on in afghanistan. signs of that when you were there? >> a lot of evidence of it actually. when i say evidence, a lot of about it.n not evidence. the signs, the answer is we didn't see visible signs. discussion about it and a lot of confidence that it is going to happen. what,heduled for april 10? >> i don't know the exact date but it is in april. the military there are pretty confident that they are going to be able to prevent the taliban from disrupting it. taliban goal would be to make it so that the

afghan people don't have outcome?ce in the scout afterat does karzai do all that? go and establish a presidential library? >> no, he has got -- he is building a modest little apartment for himself. 10,000 or 20,000 square feet or whatever it is. on the grounds. that he will -- he is going to stick around. a> you think we will have genuine transition. there are how many candidates? >> 11 left or 10 was it? heard there were 10 out there. >> and do we -- >> i thought my staff would me.p ten, thank you, bill. >> and do we -- what do we happens post-karzai afghanistan? i mean we got war lords running -- i mean what is -- obviously more optimistic than perhaps the

is given theican information that has been given to them. i just see evidence of progress. if we can maintain and if we can work out a bilateral for us and our allies that allow us to have a small effectivebut an presence there i just think -- do.now what they want to they don't like the taliban and they like their army. confidence in the government in terms of it being corruption-free or anywhere near that. the corruption problem remains there. remainsk of services there. this isn't like the afghan people have great confidence in government, they don't. but they do have confidence in the army and they have for a long time and a few years ago they didn't have a lot of confidence in the national police. they seem now from everything we can gather to have more confidence in the national police. and the local police which i

is at about 25,000 and they are trying to increase to 40,000. and to have it in more places. confidencey have because that is their own elders that basically are and connected to that. they are defending their own they are protecting their own villages. that heart, the security part emma i believe will continue to give the taliban problems. they will continue to be a force particularly in rural areas. i don't want to underestimate that. in some places, afghanistan a slightly less secure now than it was two years ago, in some places. other measures we've seen is sort of a difference between the intelligence community and the measures that the military use, it is significantly more secure. >>, security agreement, let's be clear. all u.s. forces are going to leave afghanistan, just like iraq.

>> if there is no security agreement, we cannot stay. we will not put our troops in a situation where they are at risk because of how they might be tried in a court order we don't have confidence, for instance. >> how really possibility is it that there is a deadlock and no agreement? what happens if we just take up and leave 100 cent? >> i think it is likely we will get a bilateral security agreement but there are a few issues that may remain unresolved i still call him senator john kerry, but secretary john kerry did a terrific job and working on a couple of successful solutions. >> does he get along with karzai? >> he is directed his hands on, so i think people respect that. he does not just read from

talking points come a which he makes good use of, but he also has his own knowledge and experience which he brings to bear and his own background working out problems with people, being direct. people like him. he is a big plus there are. if it does not happen and we pull out, there's a greater chance that they will fall back into a society which they don't want. >> before you get to other questions, just a few more quick ones on this. should we be negotiating this agreement with karzai along with his successor? is it essential to get it done before he leaves? >> it is. >> why? >> you don't want it to be an issue in their campaign. all of the candidates basically want an ongoing relationship, not just with us but with the coalition.

whatever that number is, 8000- 12,000 number range that you sometimes read about which has not been decided upon by the president. >> let me ask you about that. before general mattis left he was talking about 13,000 american troops which would translate to about 20,000 coalition. but do you think is needed? >> i think we have a -- it is to them to recommend. my mission, or what i believe our mission is has always been to train the afghan forces and basically leave. one other comment about what happens if there is no agreement

, that would be bad for the future of afghanistan, i think. there's a difference between here and iraq. they disbanded the iraqi army, a full listing that was done by the bush administration. >> he did not do that on his own? >> he did not. i know that. what happened here, we are going to have, we hope, 350,000 trained security forces in afghanistan. when i say "we come to let me be clear. they are going to have it. i long were member a conversation with an elder i had in this village maybe eight or six years ago now in a room not much bigger than this, a dirt floor, 100 elders sitting there and a few senators, if you have

a sitting appear and just by chance we just happen to go to the village that day. it wasn't set up for us. we came in. we introduced ourselves the best we could in this little village. after that, we were able to ask a few questions so i ask this old timer -- they are all old timers -- what do you want us to do? do you want us here? he said we want you to train our army and leave. >> wow. >> we will then, someday, invite you back as guests. we have not done exactly that, but a sickly that is what i have always felt their mission should be, to train their security forces so they can secure their own country and leave,

basically. >> although we did not dissolve the army, for the first five years of that army, we did almost no training we had general caldwell here talking about how his efforts were starting basically from the ground floor. >> for the training? i don't think it took five years, but my memory is that -- >> let me ask you this. the afghan national budget is about 20% financed by afghanistan and 80% financed by us and others in the international community. is that ever going to change? afghanistan is a country that cannot support itself, not even close. when will that turn around? >> first of all, there are agriculture is tremendous and it has potential, including exports. secondly, there mining has tremendous potential.

it is all potential. agriculture is much improved, but you're right. they will not be able to support themselves for a long time. particularly if we can work out a bilateral security agreement, i'm not sure the funding we have indicated will be for this. >> from other countries as well as from us, a bilateral security agreement, i think it will be difficult as a practical matter to provide the funding to them if they don't want to have a security agreement with us. nonetheless, i think we're going to have have ongoing support in that country for many years with our allies. it is a much smaller amount than what it costs us now. the cost to us in the budget will dramatically decline even

though it is an ongoing a few billion involved. >> great. now we will turn to questions. we have a well-informed audience with us. if you could stand and say your name and affiliation? we will get you next. you are good. you have the microphone. >> formerly the deputy secretary of defense in afghanistan and pakistan and now i am on the steering committee for afghan alliance which is a source of a lot of the information you're talking about. i have two questions. the first, many afghans tell me that one of the problems with the negotiation is they don't know what they're getting in

return and they are afraid there has been no statement about what kind of commitment there will be after 2014. is there any possibility of the absence of leadership from the administration that the congress would step forward and make a commitment to afghanistan post 2014? to put some meat behind the bones of the outcomes -- so the afghan the don't feel that they are buying a pig in a poke. the american people are getting a false picture of afghanistan and i think your questions of the senator are good evidence of that. why is the media incapable of reporting the story that the secretary daschle sorry. maybe you should have been secretary. why do the american people have a false interpretation of afghanistan today? >> i will let you go first. >> if you want to answer both, be my guest. the administration has been fairly forthcoming in terms of

commitments to afghanistan and what they could expect. i don't see the congress, particularly with karzai's comments, is going to be bore precise or forthcoming than the president >> i'm not really good at speaking for the entire media, but i will say that there's an issue of coverage in afghanistan generally and is that we don't do enough of it. it is extremely costly, extremely difficult. none of the major networks have euros anymore in afghanistan and , if anything, the problem is there's not enough coverage. that is probably an issue that goes beyond afghanistan. we tend to focus where there are difficulties and ask those questions.

>> same thing with the congress. all you read is this negative stuff. >> i think we treated very fairly. [laughter] >> teddy roosevelt had the same complaint. >> barbara from the atlantic council. i wanted to change the topic little bit to iran. will the congress wait on imposing new sanctions end of this diplomatic process a little bit more time? it appears things are going well. i would like your assessment on how the talks are going. last time you were here, you spoke about syria and that the u.s. should be promoting the moderate opposition more robustly and it does not seem to have happened. what's the reason? thank you. >> let me take the second question first otherwise it may get forgotten in my age. on syria, i still feel that we are moving too slowly on a vote. there has been some very gradual

improvement in terms of training and equipping of the that it opposition but i happen to think we have been much too slow and this. i went to jordan and turkey about six months ago, four months ago. i just think that assad is so unpopular in syria that if we gave greater support, military support, more lethal support and training to the vet it opposition -- they need to be fêted -- vetted-- it would lead to a better political settlement, which is the goal. in terms of iran, this is a really important point. i ran's rhetoric has changed. the tone of the meetings have changed.

whether or not there is a real change beneath the rhetoric, in my view, it needs to be probed a untested. whatever the percentage is, some people say the odds are that this is just -- what did the college? a romance? -- what is the saying? >> charm offensive. >> where is my staff? i'm looking to the audience for my words. it's just a charm offensive with nothing behind it. it may be that surely that is all it is. some people say, there is a real chance here. whether or not it's a 10% chance, 60% chance, it should be tested. it should be probed. the potential, if this is real, could be a major, major change. >> should congress know? >> i did not mean to avoid that. i believe we should not at this

time add additional sanctions. we should fully keep those sanctions in place. that is how my believe, the main reason why iran is where they are out because those sanctions have had an impact. my committee, the armed services committee, has been very much involved putting those sanctions in place. alas national defense authorization act had the last tranche in that bill. i'm not one who has any sense at all and opposed to sanctions. as opposed, i am very for it. if we respond to this possibility in a negative way instead of being study and keeping sanctions in place, if we tighten the screws now when

it looks as though, apparently against some opposition at home and in iran, that the iranian leadership may be willing to talk about ending, modifying, changing and making less threatening their nuclear program, and to response is negative, they could very well lose the very countries, particularly russia and china, who have stood with us to put sanctions in place internationally. it would weaken our current stations possibly, and i would say probably but at least possibly, for us to respond \possibly, for us to respond rhetorically or through additional sanctions in a negative way before we have taken the couple of months that are needed to explore the

reality as to whether there is a real change in iran's attitude. i'm not only willing but i believe we should not them at this time, -- we should not, at this time, do anything but we should in a steady, constant way keep the pressure on iran because it has had a good result but not because of the negative effect on the countries that have joined with us on this add to the pressure at this time. >> and no addition to the nba this year? >> people might try to do it. just because i think we should not do it does not mean it won't happen. it happened even on my own bill.

>> university of michigan. go blue. >> we also have some spartans in the audience. there you go. >> i attended the talk yesterday at the u.s. institute of peace and i was struck the fact that he granted nothing about the fact that he had mismanaged the political process and i was in brussels and had a chance to interview one of his opponents, dr. hashimi, who is now in qatar. he showed me all kinds of documents to show that he was not lt of the charges. he is very much tied with the sunni opposition and it's incredible to me that he does not bring them in because it would undercut the whole al qaeda operation. lastly, he said that the sons of iraq are with him and i don't think they are.

>> he's meeting with president obama today. >> i think i agree with just about everything you said. i'm not sure about the sons of iraq. i would be surprised. other than that, i happen to agree with you and i joined a bipartisan letter with minute does, mccain and others to urge the president to make those points. i basically agree with you. also in terms of the failure of the iraqi government to protect the christian minority, to protect the people at camp liberty, for instance, whether or not the government of iraq is the perpetrator of that horrific outrage, they did not carry out that mission if it was to protect that came.

the christian minority in iraq is very, very fragile and the relationship to the sunni, if it is what you say, in terms of iraq and the relationship, allowing the iranians to overfly and support assad is so totally terrible. nonetheless, he has a lot to talk about and if they want certain kinds of weapons, there's a lot of skepticism about providing any types of weapons if there are to be a condition to basically doing a number of things differently and making sure that those weapons are not put to the years that we could never support, hopefully. >> margaret warner, pbs news hour. if ronnie -- rouhani or his

executives were willing, that the president has some authority to freeze some sanctions. the iranians are looking for a sign of good faith if they extended a sign of good faith. >> i don't think it would be appropriate for me to tell you what signs of action on their part should result in signs from us. i just don't feel comfortable doing that. >> it's clear the iranians are going to want something and pretty soon. >> they are going to want something and we are going to want something. what we're going to give them is producing something which is

significant in terms of what they need to do and i don't think i'm comfortable in changing that. >> you do recognize the need for a quid pro quo. it would just be a negotiation measure temporarily. >> there's going to be a first phase hopefully within a month or show that shows that they're not just talking to friendly but they are the haters going to be different -- but their behavior is going to be different. you can reduce your 50% enriched uranium down to 20% but if you are still producing even 10% hindu go down with the 50%, and

other words you reduce your stockpile to -- is it 10 or 20? if they are still producing it, then what? you know you go what to the net? you know? what's the net? how many months or years but take for them to produce a weapon under those circumstances? what is still to be negotiated? i really don't want to get into that. >> you knew they were going to move from that. >> not necessarily up and end of the day to move from that. >> if you want some sort of nuclear power, you may have to import it. >> that might be the ultimate game. >> it's a goal but it will not obviously happened in phase one. phase one will be something

that, hopefully, if it comes off shows that they are willing to move significantly and that what we are doing in return does not endanger, does not leave us off significantly any worse place that we are now in terms of being able to act should they move towards a nuclear weapon. >> john sullivan, the center for international enterprise. thank you for your positive comments about afghanistan. we've been there for a long time as well and i've noticed a lot of positive developments. there are afghan business associations in the afghan chamber has been a way to go but the builders association and others are building the foundation for an economy. i will not say market oriented because it's not there yet but it's definitely moving in that

direction. the question i wanted to rescue was, you know we were talking about the negativity? to me, a good portion is coming from the various inspectors general reporting from afghanistan. you think you will get to the point where they can series the handle transfer of funds he? -- funds? >> no. >> pretty straightforward answer. >> i don't think they are to that point out all. the gm representative and dealer. there are real glimmers of enterprise. this is a significant deal. these women work during the day and they come to this place

right to the american university campus to get the skills that they need to go into business. i know it will happen overnight and it's a real significant change to be a part of. >> i'm from the naval postgraduate school. it's great to have you here and listen to what you are saying. i want to start with what you opened with was telling the stories of the public that's it. the president was so good about telling the story when he campaigned that he lost that skill when he got into the white house. we have plenty of examples of that and, indeed, what's going on with the health care system -- >> don't go there. [laughter] >> we should start another website.

>> afghan healthcare? come on. >> i'm talking about the importance of storytelling in getting it into the education system and am wondering if you could talk about that along with the press that we need to get people interested because it's all about selling new ideas. we don't talk about complexity. we live in a complex system. finally, last night i saw a play called "love in afghanistan." i think it's one of the most powerful plays of ever seen and i'm a performing arts junkie. i recommend everyone to go see it. it was fabulous. it addresses the things were talking about. >> it's a really important point.

somebody brought over some young afghan music students about six months ago. it was terrific. we brought them to the capital so that some of my colleagues could see. i think there were like eight students on afghan instruments at a music school which could have never existed and they are there preserving their heritage. it has an impact when people can see a play or whatever, of course it does. telling stories are important. the problem on the other side is , i'm not a good storyteller, by the way. i admire those of my colleagues who are. it's the most powerful way to get a message across. my wife reminds me of this all the time. instead of statistics, you just said, how many teachers? they will not remember. there are 10 times as many teachers now, 40% are women, 30% are women.

they won't remember that statistic. my wife will tell me that if she were here, why not just tell one story of one teacher? they would remember that? the answer to that, i'm afraid, and i'm a victim of this. you can tell an anecdote about almost anything. the question is how broadly based is an anecdote? under the taliban and i could tell a story probably of a woman who did something terrific and her relic in her village. you could probably find a story which would give you the totally wrong impression of the taliban, the tale of the elephant problem. is the anecdote a tale of the elephant or is it the elephant? the statistics are the elephant. the anecdote is detailed but it's far more powerful, i think,

and they could not agree with you more. >> we have time for one more very quick question and, reminder, this has all been on the record. >> now you tell me. [laughter] whoa. whoa. >> rebecca chamberlain, and a former intern of your stomach great state of michigan. the question is on china. can you comment on their role in afghanistan and our relationship with the? i'm thinking of all of the industry and could they be developed to operate with? >> great question and you have 90 seconds. >> i have read very different examples and they are much more aggressive and unwilling to be partners and i think the security situation is not one that they're particularly

satisfied with in terms of moving in. i have heard stories about the chinese in afghanistan and they reflect their general view about business. they are very aggressive business people, far more aggressive than any catalyst of ever seen. can i tell a story? comes with an anecdote? -- end with an anecdote? your honor. >> thank you. >> we met with him 25 years ago, or whatever, the head of the communist arty and china, the number two or three guy. it was the only communist party in the world. we are arguing with him and china about human rights and we are giving him a lecture, in

essence, on why it's important that human rights be part of an equation for a country that businesses have to respect the rights of their people. you have to respect the rights of workers, respect the empire not. we are giving lectures about businesses with responsibilities, in essence. he says, we have an old saying in china. don't mix business with these other things. that's the point of his old saying.

business is business. [laughter] workers have rights. the environment has rights. and he's telling me we have an old saying, business is business cap go -- is business? >> we have an old saying, , except is business with business. [laughter] [applause] >> today on c-span, newspaper headlines and stories. live on "washington journal" followed by testimony from intelligence officials on

national security agency intelligence and surveillance programs. later, a hearing on the september shooting at the washington navy yard. >> reinforcing her reputation as a silent partner, she once was asked about her role as first lady and replied through a secretary, no comment. watch today at 11:00 a.m. on c-span. monday night our series continues. >> i was surrounded by a few of the items that kept her on the 10 best-dressed list. she worked with molly for her day outfits and this is what she wore to the st. lawrence seaway where they met prince phillip. another custom designed address is -- dress is a printed cotton fabric with many of the thousands the eisenhowers lived in during their marriage and includes the five stars for

general eisenhower. she was very fond of the color pink and wore it in many different shades and styles. jackie kennedy is well known for the little black dress and here are two examples of mamie's little black dress. she always said she would never dress like an old lady. these gowns she wore in her 70's and 80's show her love of bright colors and wild fabrics. >> meet the first lady monday night, live at 9:00 eastern on c-span.

♪ secretary of state john kerry says he will stop in egypt to discuss i lateral relations. wall street journal this morning reports that banks are behind increase of people going to the irs to discuss money held in swiss accounts and the banks are telling current and former employers that names could be disclosed to the public. in light of the shooting yesterday at los angeles international airport, the first 45 minutes this morning we want to get your